Why is this Scottish scientist's face long overdue on their £10 note?
Click to visit the website PatrickMatthew.com
Showing posts with label matthew. Show all posts
Showing posts with label matthew. Show all posts
Friday, 5 February 2016
Monday, 27 July 2015
The New Crisis in Darwinism
Progress in search engine technology facilitated original research in Google's Library Project of over 30 million searchable books and other publications.That research led to game changing discoveries, which have transformed the unique anomaly of Darwin's and Wallace's claimed dual independent discoveries of Matthew's prior-published original ideas. That old anomaly was changed by the New Data in 2014 from a vexation into a crisis of credulous deifying Darwinist belief in the double occurrence of paradoxical immaculate conceptions by Darwin and Wallace, miraculously occurring as each logically must, whilst they were surrounded by naturalists who they knew, who influenced them, and whose minds were fertile with Matthew's ideas, having read and then cited the book decades before Wallace (1855) Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1842, 1844 and 1859) replicated the work within it, and decades before Darwin fallaciously claimed no naturalist had read it before 1860.
Consequently, the issue of Patrick Mathew's priority over Darwin and Wallace for his own prior-published and cited discovery is not something that the history of scientific discovery can ethically or sensibly continue to choose to ignore if it is to be of any use in helping us to understand how the discovery of natural selection occurred. Such knowledge is important, because it is fundamental in developing ways to increase the chances of making other great discoveries in the future.
Read more on the Patrick Matthew Website Here
Sunday, 24 May 2015
Darwin's and Wallace's Immaculate Deception: On the Portrait by Gabriel Woods
In the words of the artist Gabriel Woods (May 2015) in his explanation for his portrait "Immaculate Deception":
To find out more about the story behind the picture 'Immaculate Deception' please click here."The picture represents Charles Robert Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace who both claimed, they each independently discovered the theory of natural selection with no prior knowledge of Patrick Matthew's earlier work. Patrick Matthew is represented in the allegorical painting as the infant "
Thursday, 23 April 2015
Darwinist Stephen J. Gould Just Made Stuff up to Defend his Namesake Darwin
Kindle Notes from Nullius (1)
(1979) was quite reasonably convinced that Charles Darwin had plagiarized 's (1831) discovery that artificial selection is the key to understanding natural selection - What I have named "The Artificial versus Natural Selection Explanatory Analogy of Differences". (First recognized as an analogy by W. J. Dempster 1996, p. 85).
In Desperate Defense of his Namesake, "Darwin", Famous Leading Set Out on a Crusade to "Rubbish" Eiseley's Findings
Most notably, Eiseley's particular piece of compelling evidence was never addressed by the famous Darwinist Gould (1983, 2002), who selectively criticized Eiseley's other evidence of Darwin's plagiarism of Edward Blyth, who - my blog post yesterday explained - cited many times the fact that he was influenced by Robert Mudie - who I discovered in 2014 (see Nullius) was first to replicate in 1832 (1) Matthew's unique term "rectangular branching" and (2) his unique and most powerful explanatory analogy.
Such selective omission lays Gould wide open to accusations of one-sided pseudo-scholarship.
Gould's biased omission is important because ID uniquely reveals that both Low (1844) and Darwin (1844 and 1859) replicated Matthew's (1831) use of this key example, Darwin did so in his private and unpublished 1844 essay - using the exact same examples, and later in the Origin of Species (1859) - using different examples, without citing Matthew (1831), or Low (1844).
Kindle Notes from Nullius (2)
Steven J Gould (2002) claimed also that: "ranked as a standard item in biological discourse." The implication being that it can't have been coined by way of influence from Matthew's unique term "natural process of selection."
Despite providing zero evidence to support it, Gould's winning argument has been innocently accepted by credulously biased Darwinist schnooks as proof that Eiseley was naively mistaken in thinking "natural selection" was a rare term.
In fact, the BigData facilitated ID research method proves Gould was absolutely wrong. Gould was "bulls**tting" in the philosophical sense generally described by Frankfurt (2005) . Because In his attempt to keep Matthew buried in oblivion with one-sided, Darwin-friendly inquiry, Gould (2002) essentially wheeled out a myth to accuse Eiseley of committing what he called an "etymological mistake", In reality, with the benefit of BigData technology that faciitates the ID research among over 30 million publications, we now know Eiseley was right and Gould was just being a biased baloney mongering pseudo-scholar - by way of simply making stuff up to suit his own ends. What is most disgraceful is that Darwinists - being so bone bullheadedly greedy to believe anything in their namesake's defense, swallowed Gould's bulloney without even chewing! And they continue to swallow it today.
Proper analysis of the data - as opposed to making stuff up to suit your own ends - reveals that out of over thirty million publications, the precise term 'natural selection' can be found in the literature only four times before Darwin first used it in 1858.
The first known use of the term 'natural selection' had nothing at all to do with science - the term being used by William Preston (1803) to describe how an artist would select a scene to paint. The second usage was by Darwin's fellow member, Frances Corbaux (1829) (this use was discovered first by Professor Milton Wainwright), in a very vaguely survival of the fittest human centenarian sense. The third usage was an anonymously authored piece of 1837 to describe how a a hypothesis was chosen as the best - a 'natural selection' over others.
When asked to account for his use of the term by his publisher "John Murray", Darwin claimed he found the term "natural selection" in the literature on breeding, but could never show where. If he got it from Corbaux then he told another lie. But of that, in this case, we cannot be at all sure. To give Darwin the benefit of the doubt, we must stick to the facts. We know for a fact he used the term in his 1844 private essay. We know for a fact he said he got it from the work of breeders - so let's assume he did get it from the work of breeders. Out of 30+ million publications, which pre-1844 publication by breeders comes close to using the term 'natural selection'? Only Matthew's 1831 book, coincidentally containing the full theory of natural selection , and - incidentally - a book on breeding trees! Matthew's is the book that Darwin's associate Chambers read and cited in 1844 and the book that his associate Selby read and cited in 1842. The dates are significant - are they not?
Although he never used the precise term, out of over 30 million publications we know that Matthew 1831 was the first to use the term: 'natural process of selection' and in 1859 Darwin was first to shuffle those same four words into 'process of natural selection'.
For the full story of all the strong evidence in favor of the Originator's, Patrick Matthew's, influence on Darwin and Wallace pre-1858 see Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret.That is my book - a book that pseudo scholarly leading Darwinists and their sheep like followers have read (I know because I am in correspondence with so many) but will not cite in their literature, because they don't want you to read it! They don't want you to read it because it absolutely proves that much of the literature - authored by them and their idols - churned out by the mighty and hugely profitable "Darwin Industry" -- is newly proven with hard and independently verifiable new data to be completely disproven claptrap!
When one leading Darwinist has the courage to abide by the motto of the Royal Society (Nullius in Verba - "On the word alone of no one") and engage fully with new hard data revealed in Nullius, only then will Darwinists thaw out from their current state of being pseudoscholarly Darwin worshiping -like frozen asinine donkeys.
The Enlightenment
Brodie, A. (2007):
'The enlightened person accepts the word of authority not as something to which he has to say ‘yes’, but as something to which it is appropriate to subject to critical analysis. The question for the enlightened person therefore is whether the word of authority can stand up to cross-examination before the tribunal of reason. If it can then it is accepted because it is sanctioned not by authority but by reason. If on the other hand it cannot withstand the cross-examination then it has to be discarded, however exalted the source.'
From: Brodie, A. (2007) The Scottish Enlightenment: The Historical Age of the Historical Nation. Edinburgh. Birlinn Ltd.
A selection of my blog posts and articles on this topic can be found on my website Patrickmatthew.com
Friday, 17 April 2015
Why Darwinists Missed the World's Most Powerful Analogy
Building a little upon the extensive work of the pioneering human transplant surgeon and Darwin expert Jim Dempster, I summarized in my book “Nullius ” what Patrick Matthew originally contributed to knowledge in 1831. I wrote:
‘Matthew originated the concept of Natural Selection in 1831 to explain the emergence and extinction of species between and after geological catastrophic events. He uniquely named it “the natural process of selection”, which he described as a fundamental law of nature. He discussed divergence in terms of diverging ramifications, the mutability of species, rejected miraculous birth of new species following catastrophes, held to a steady state in nature interrupted by catastrophes, understood the importance of the complex multi-level phenomenon of power of occupancy and ecological niches, rejected simple development from nearly-allied species in favour of descent from common ancestor, recognized what constituted a species, recognized the difference between domestic and wild species and saw artificial selection as the key to both discovering and explaining the process of natural selection.’
The last 16 words of the last sentence are rather important.
Dr Mike Weale, senior academic and statistical geneticist at Kings College London and I have spent some considerable time debating amicably whether or not (and if so – to what degree) Matthew’s various comparisons of artificial selection (in terms of humans cognitively breeding by way of selective breeding – animals and plants under protective culture to suit their own needs) with natural selection (the ‘natural process of selection’ in the wild where the most circumstance suited varieties are selected by nature to survive in the wild) is an analogy. The debate was settled on 14th April 2015 on the Patrick Matthew Project.
Essentially, it was agreed that there are actually two main artificial and natural selection analogies that were used in the 19th century by those writing at the cutting edge about their own work that they believe led to the discovery of natural selection.
This is a new understanding in the story of the discovery of natural selection.
In current absence of any disconfirming evidence, the literature record shows that although many others before Matthew (1831) mentioned what artificial selection does, only Matthew used that information in an analogy with anything like any kind of understanding of any of the processes of natural selection to show the differences between the two. Matthew did this as an explanatory device to help readers understand what natural selection was. This was an analogy of differences. Analogies that focus upon difference, as opposed to analogies of sameness or similarities between the things compared come under the broad definition of the term analogy that is provided by the Oxford English Dictionary: ‘A comparison made between one thing and another for the purpose of explanation or clarification.’ We might name Matthew’s unique analogy of Artificial versus Natural Selection: ‘The Analogy of Differences’.
The same unique analogy of differences that Matthew used in 1831 was replicated first by by Mudie (1832), then Low (1844), Darwin (1844) Wallace (1858) and by Darwin again (1859; 1868). See my blog on this story for the full details
Notably, the eminent anthropologist and historian of science Professor Loren Eiseley (1979 – ‘Darwin and the Mysterious Mr X’ pp – 72-73) was convinced that Darwin must have read Matthew’s 1831 book in or before 1844 when Darwin replicated in his private essay of 1844 Matthew’s example of the differences between plants grown in nurseries and those naturally selected in the wild. Eiseley noted that following Matthew’s letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle of 1860 – claiming his priority – that Darwin (1868) replicated his 1844 private essay replication of Matthew’s unique prior-published analogy – this time citing Matthew. However, Eiseley focused only on the similarity of the example of plants provided in the analogy – namely plants grown in nurseries versus the wild. Had Eiseley focused instead on it as an analogy of differences in its own right then he would have spotted that Darwin (1859) used the same analogy of differences – only with different examples – on pages 83-48of the ‘Origin of Species’.
The second analogy is the ‘Artificial Compared to Natural Selection analogy of similarities’ that is a comparison of the similarities between artificial and natural selection that Darwin deployed as a far more complex argumentative device in the Origin of Species (1859). For short we might name this one ‘the analogy of similarities’.
It is important to note that as a disciplinary group biologists are remarkable and alone in that the concept of analogy in biology is used only to refer to similarities between one thing and another. I believe that this is why the artificial v natural selection Analogy of Differences has been so under-researched by Darwinists – the majority of whom are – I believe – biologists.
This breakthrough in our understanding of what Matthew originated and Darwin and Wallace replicated, means is that we can now say four things:
(1) Patrick Matthew (1831) was first to publish the complete hypothesis of natural selection.
(2) Patrick Matthew (1831) was also first to use the ‘Artificial versus Natural Selection Analogy of Differences’ to explain the process of natural selection.
(3) Both Darwin and Wallace subsequently replicated both in their major works on the topic; Wallace (1858) in his Ternate Paper and Darwin in his private essay of 1844 and then in the Origin of Species (1859).
(4) Darwin and Wallace each claimed that none known to them had read Matthew’s prior published ideas and that they each independently of Matthew, and independently of one another, discovered natural selection for themselves.
(5) In effect then, Darwin and Wallace claimed to have each independently generated Matthew’s prior published unique hypothesis AND his prior published unique analogy to explain it.
(6) Although Darwin claimed none known to him had read Matthew’s ideas before 1860, BigData analysis uniquely revealed in Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest
A must buy for Darwin fans and foes alike
secret (Sutton 2014) that Darwin’s claim is fallacious. In fact, it is newly known, seven naturalists known to him had both read and cited Matthew’s book many years before 1858. Moreover, three of those naturalists were known to be major influences as naturalists, or else facilitators as naturalist editors, on the pre-1858 written work of both Darwin and Wallace on natural selection. By way of another explanatory analogy, this makes Darwin’s and Wallace’s so-called “independent discoveries” of Matthew’s prior published hypothesis, and their replication of his explanatory analogy, like the Virgin Mary’s Miraculous Immaculate Conception of Jesus of Nazareth (see my position paper on this analogy).
This is important, in my opinion. It is highly important because analogies are extremely powerful explanatory devices that have in recent years attracted much attention in the fields of cognitive psychology and neuroscience.
Most importantly, it currently appears (in absence of any disconfirming evidence) that Matthew (1831) not only originated and prior published the hypothesis of natural selection (in a book that we now newly know was, in fact, read and cited by seven naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace), which is arguably the most important scientific hypothesis of all time, but Matthew (1831) also originated the world’s most powerful analogy in order to explain it. Darwin and Wallace replicated both!
Conclusion and the way forward
Does this breakthrough in knowledge, driven forward by a social scientist in collaboration with a biologist, provide confirmatory evidence for the “Frozen Donkey Hypothesis”? I think, to be fair, the answer is a complex story of yes and no. But, in my opinion, Darwinists must adapt to new knowledge or else they will lose their power of occupancy in the literature on the history of discovery of natural selection.
Wednesday, 15 April 2015
Not Satisfied with the Theory Alone, Darwin and Wallace also Stole Matthew's Explanatory Hypothesis!
Read the New Evidence Based Argument:
Not only was Patrick Matthew (1831) the first to discover and have published the full hypothesis of natural selection, he was also the first to use the powerful Artificial versus Natural Selection Analogy of differences to explain it. This means that the plagiarizing science fraudsters Charles Darwin (1844, 1859, 1868) and Alfred Wallace (1858) replicated Matthew's prior published discovery without citation as well as replicating his powerful and unique explanatory analogy for it. {Read the full story Here}.
Monday, 26 January 2015
Darwin Deleted: A book jam packed with juicy errors
Darwin Deleted: Imagining a World without Darwin by Peter J. BowlerMy rating: 1 of 5 stars
In this book, (Bowler 2013) Darwin Deleted: Imagining a World without Darwin, Professor Bowler - Professor emeritus of the history of science at Queens University Belfast - creates a counterfactual history of how things might have turned out had Darwin died aboard the Beagle and never written about natural selection.
His book is well written and entertaining once you get beyond the necessarily very thorough caveats about the usefulness of thinking counter-factually in the introduction. However, it contains significant and unforgivable errors. That I am no Darwinist and no science historian and yet the fact that I know them to be 100% erroneous does not bode well for Bowler or Chicago University Press and it's so-called "expert" peer review system!
A book such as Bowler's takes a lot of work - blood sweat tears and even bone marrow - but his credulous parroting of the Darwinian myth that Matthew's published discovery of natural selection did not reach the brains of either Darwin or Wallace is his utter downfall. An error of fact that, unfortunately, makes his entire book a fool's errand. All is not lost of course. He could bring out a second edition with Patrick Matthew as the protagonist.
In this review, I prove my point. On which note, what follows is a brief presentation of Bowler's errors and the published evidence in the literature that proves him to be 100 per cent wrong.
Error of fact 1:
On page 54 Bowler (2013) writes of Patrick Matthew:
`Patrick Matthew may well have stated the idea of natural selection as early as 1831, but he did nothing to explore its implications or to persuade his readers that it had the potential to revolutionize biology. His contribution is worth noting, but to suggest that is provides the basis for dismissing Darwin as the true founder of the theory is to misunderstand the whole process of how scientific revolution happens.'
In point of disconfirming fact for Bowler's argument:
Other great discoverers, such as Mendel, Fleming, and Higgs, did not take their ideas forward, but others did. The main issue, therefore, in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace is simply to determine whether or not Matthew influenced Darwin or Wallace. Focusing upon that question, we do know that Matthew fully articulated his discovery of natural selection in a publication 27 years before Darwin and Wallace (1858) replicated it. And we know that both Darwin (1859) and Wallace claimed to have also discovered natural selection independently of one another (Darwin and Wallace 1858). Darwin (1860 and 1861) specifically claimed no-prior knowledge of Matthew's discovery and Wallace (1871; 1905) less specifically, simply claimed to have discovered it independently.
We now know (see Sutton 2014) that Loudon (1832), Selby (1842) and Chambers (1832) each cited Matthew's book before being at the epicentre of influence and facilitation of Darwin's and Wallace' published work on evolution. That fact alone proves that Matthew in fact did influence others of the importance of his discovery. And those others - via 'knowledge contamination' - must most surely have influenced both Darwin and Wallace.
So Nullius in Verba Charles Darwin! Because other naturalists who influenced you actually cited Matthew's book pre-1858!
(1) Loudon edited and published Blyth's (1835 and 1836) hugely influential papers on evolution - papers which Bowler mentions as having stated several key concepts of natural selection. And Darwin (1861) freely admitted the great contribution Blyth made to his own thinking on the topic.
(2) Chambers (1832) cited Matthew's book and then went on (Chambers 1844) to publish the Vestiges of Creation - a book which Both Wallace and Darwin admitted was a great influence on thinking about natural selection and organic evolution in general.
(3) Selby (1842) cited Matthews book many times and commented upon his key natural selection notion of power of occupancy. And Selby edited and published Wallace's (1855) famous Sarawak paper - which contained many examples of key natural selection ideas. Darwin also read that paper pre-1858.
That three of only seven naturalists, newly discovered to have cited Matthew's book in the literature, should have played such essential roles in influencing, editing and publishing the work of Darwin and Wallace proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Matthew did persuade his readers that natural selection had the potential to revolutionize biology. Bowler is proven wrong, because under the very criteria that Darwinists such as Bowler specifically created to exclude Matthew from his rightful place as an immortal great thinker of science, the new discovery of his certain indirect influence upon Darwin and Wallace, means that as both first discoverer and proven influencer Matthew now has full and complete priority over Darwin and Wallace for the discovery of natural selection. Perhaps Darwinists would now like to exercise their right to cognitive dissonance and invent some new `bury the Scot' criteria to protect their namesake from being knocked off the pedestal he fought to so hard for them to put him on?
Error of fact 2
On page 31 Bowler writes that Wallace missed the key element of using artificial selection to explain natural selection.
Bowler (2013, p. 31):
`Alfred Russel Wallace also conceived a basic idea of natural selection, although we shall see that he understood its implications rather differently. Wallace also missed key elements of the case Darwin presented, most obviously the analogy between artificial and natural selection.'
However, Bowler very conveniently fails to mention that Eiseley (1979, pp.71-73) believed Darwin plagiarised Matthew's (1831) prior use of the analogy of artificial selection to explain natural selection and even replicated a specific example of trees raised in nurseries in his unpublished essay of 1844.
Bowler has penned another absolute fallacy by telling us that Wallace did not deploy the artificial selection analogy. Because in his own Linnean Society paper, Wallace (see Darwin and Wallace 1858), whilst specimen hunting in the jungles of the Far East, in actual fact, does incredibly replicate Matthew's prior- discovery that artificial selection is the key to explaining natural selection. Wallace (1858) wrote:
`...those that prolong their existence can only be the most perfect in health and vigour - those who are best able to obtain food regularly, and avoid their numerous enemies. It is, as we commenced by remarking, "a struggle for existence," in which the weakest and least perfectly organized must always succumb.' [And]: `We see, then, that no inferences as to varieties in a state of nature can be deduced from the observation of those occurring among domestic animals. The two are so much opposed to each other in every circumstance of their existence, that what applies to the one is almost sure not to apply to the other. Domestic animals are abnormal, irregular, artificial; they are subject to varieties which never occur and never can occur in a state of nature: their very existence depends altogether on human care; so far are many of them removed from that just proportion of faculties, that true balance of organization, by means of which alone an animal left to its own resources can preserve its existence and continue its race.'
By failing to discover who Matthew influenced, who in turn must have influenced Darwin and Wallace, Bowler's (2013) entire book is a fool's errand because it is based on the false premise that Darwin and Wallace were independent discoverers of natural selection. To compound that dysology Bowler, creates the fallacy that Wallace did not replicate Matthew's prior use of artificial selection as an analogy to explain natural selection. Bowler's deploys that specific fallacy to make the case that Darwin was an original thinker. Clearly, the hard facts prove that nothing could be further from the truth. Because both Darwin and Wallace both audaciously replicated Matthew's use of artificial selection.
Here is just one example, of many, that Matthew (1831) wrote in the main body of his book on this issue:
`Man's interference, by preventing this natural process of selection among plants, independent of the wider range of circumstances to which he introduces them, has increased the differences in varieties particularly in the more domesticated kinds...'
In his unpublished essay of 1844, Darwin wrote:
`In the case of forest trees raised in nurseries, which vary more than the same trees do in their aboriginal forests, the cause would seem to lie in their not having to struggle against other trees and weeds, which in their natural state doubtless would limit the conditions of their existence...'
We should not actually be in the least bit surprised to find Wallace replicating Matthew's artificial selection analogy to explain his discovery, because Selby, the editor and publisher of Wallace's (1855) Sarawak paper, cited Matthew's book many times in his own book on forest trees (Selby 1842), which is an irrefutable case of Matthewian knowledge contamination of Wallace's pre-Origin work. I made that particular discovery in 2013. It was completely undetected by anyone until I published it in (Sutton 2014). So much then for Bowler's uncritical parroting of the Darwinist myth that Matthew never influenced anyone with his discovery.
Error of fact 3: Bowler Deploys Darwin's sly Appendix Myth
Darwin knew full well that Matthew's unique ideas were in both the main body of his book and in its Appendix. Indeed he wrote to his friend Joseph Hooker admitting as much (Darwin 1860b). Yet still Darwin went on to lie (Darwin 1861) that Matthew's ideas were brief and buried in his book's appendix as an excuse for not having read them and for his fallacious claim that those ideas went unnoticed pre-Origin of Species. Bowler merely parrots Darwin's great lie, flying in the face of the fact that Matthew's ideas run throughout the book where they take up many pages - including Matthew's artificial selection analogy, and the unique name for his discovery. Indeed, as outlined above; the very artificial selection analogy that Bowler (2013 - pp. 56-58) admits Matthew used is in the main body of his book - not its appendix.
See Sutton 2014 for hard proof of how page after page of Matthew's (1831) text on natural selection is in the main body of his book.
Another Darwinian Myth in the Making
In the weird unscholarly Darwinist tradition of writing that you are personally naming or calling something, when it has already been thus named by others, Bowler gives the false impression that he is uniquely coining his own term and its concept (see my blog on Richard Dawkins doing the exact same thing). In this case, Bowler (2013, p 139) writes:
'The formalist perspective encouraged a more structured progressionism that I call "developmentalism". '
But Bowler never coined the term developmentalism, because its been used by natural scientists since 1869. For example, see the Anthropological Review (1869, p.ixxxix):
`He dissented from developmentalism, we believe decidedly it has been said by Professor Welcker that although he was sceptical upon the descendance hypothesis he reserved himself expectant but the readers of the well argued exposition of his views entitled. Some Remarks on the Succession and Development of Animal Organisation on the surface of our globe, in the different periods of its existence, would rather conclude that he had decided against developmentalism after careful and thorough investigation.'
By giving such a powerfully false impression that he has coined the term "developmentalism", Bowler engages in exactly the same type of Darwinist dysology that led so many Darwinists to go into print with their erroneous beliefs that Darwin coined the term and concept `natural selection' and that Richard Dawkins coined the terms and concepts of the `selfish gene' and, most ironically, `replicator'. Of course, Darwin and Dawkins did no such thing. But, just like Bowler in 'Darwin Deleted', they sure as hell gave the self-serving impression that they are being original by naming terms and ideas that are, in fact, pre-named and pre-owned.
Discussion and conclusions
Bowler's weird error of fact, in claiming that Wallace, pre-1858, did not use the artificial selection analogy first used by Matthew to explain natural selection, led him ultimately to draw the 100 per cent wrong conclusion to crucially inform his ultimate prediction about what would have happened had Darwin drowned pre-Origin (Bowler 2013, p170):
`Wallace would not have used the analogy between natural and artificial selection...'
Surely this amazingly massive error, and the failure of any Darwinist to spot it before I, is further evidence that leading Darwinists are suffering from dreadful bias when it comes to assessing the orignality of their namesake?
That Bowler's book passed peer review, and has been highly praised by fellow biologists and science historians, is indicative of a widespread and very deep-seated scientific monopoly on 'knowledge' that is facilitated by conflict of interest when it comes to judging who has priority for the discovery of natural selection. Failing to apply the scientific principle of nullius in verba (on the word alone of no one), it seems that Darwinists have been unable to see that their namesake is only their namesake due to their own failure to investigate Darwin's (1861) impudent claim that Matthew's ideas went unnoticed until he called Darwin's attention to them in 1860.
If Darwinists refuse to accept now that they are named after the wrong scientist, then we should not be surprised. It is important to understand that those calling themselves a Darwinist will have a colossal conflict of interest when it comes to judging whether someone not called Darwin should have priority over their hero for the very idea that made him famously their namesake. In light of the new discovery, that Matthew did influence Darwin and Wallace pre-1858, we should expect Darwinists to experience cognitive dissonance and set about making a number of implausible arguments along the lines that Matthewian knowledge contamination from Loudon, Chambers and Selby cannot be 100 per cent proven to have occurred. Failing that, we should expect them to create a new made-for Matthew excuse to deny his priority. Perhaps Darwinists will now newly create a third criteria for priority? Perhaps they will argue next that it is not the originator who influenced others to take a discovery forward that has priority for a discovery but whoever more famously convinced the wider world of the veracity of that discovery? After all that is exactly what appears to have happened by default in the case of Richard Dawkins and the 'selfish gene' and - with exquisite backside biting irony - the 'selfish replicator' (see Sutton 2013).
The Darwinist Bowler is very far from alone in creating his own and spreading old fallacies, lies and myths to keep Patrick Matthew buried in relative obscurity. One cannot help wondering, how Professor Bowler - an expert historian of science - could have unwittingly made so many glaring factual errors? More so, his book is published by the prestigious University of Chicago Press, which means that it will have undergone expert peer review. How could the reviewers possibly fail to spot those obvious errors of fact? Surely it cannot be because they serve to perpetuate the myth that Darwin and Wallace each discovered natural selection independently of Matthew, can it?
Bowler's 2013 dysology sits among many other examples, by other authors, publishing with prestigious scientific publishers, which confirms the Dysology Hypothesis that poor scholarship facilitates and encourages others to get away with publishing further poor scholarship. Moreover, it is yet another example from a long list of scientific publications, by major science publishers, which are written by Darwinists who have, since 1860, managed to contain the threat of Patrick Matthew by publishing numerous downright fallacies, lies and myths.
References
The Anthropological Review (1869) Volume 7.
Bowler, P. J. (2013) Darwin Deleted: Imagining a World without Darwin. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
Blyth, E. 1835. An attempt to classify the "varieties" of animals. The Magazine of Natural History. (8) (1), Parts 1-2.
Blyth, E. 1836. Observations on the various seasonal and other external Changes which regularly take place in Birds more particularly in those which occur in Britain; with Remarks on their great Importance in indicating the true Affinities of Species; and upon the Natural System of Arrangement. The Magazine of Natural History: Volume 9. p. 393 - 409.
Chambers, R. 1832. Chambers's Edinburgh Journal. William Orr. Saturday March 24th p. 63.
Chambers, R. 1844. Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. New York. Wiley and Putnum. (published anonymously).
Darwin, C. R. and Wallace, A. R. (1858) On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society of London.
Darwin, C. R. (1860a) Natural selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette no. 16 (21 April): 362-363.(This is Darwin's letter in response to Matthew's in the Gardeners Chronicle where Darwin clearly indicates he had no prior knowledge of Matthew's book).
Darwin, C. (1860b) Letter to Hooker. 13th April. Darwin Correspondence Project. Darwin Correspondence Database.
Darwin, C. R. (1861) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. (Third Edition) London. John Murray.
Eiseley, L. (1979) Darwin and the Mysterious Mr X: New Light on the Evolutionists. New York. E. P. Dutton.
Loudon, J.C. 1832. Matthew Patrick On Naval Timber and Arboriculture with Critical Notes on Authors who have recently treated the Subject of Planting. Gardener's Magazine. Vol. VIII. p.703.
Matthew, P (1831) On Naval Timber and Arboriculture; With a critical note on authors who have recently treated the subject of planting. Edinburgh. Adam Black. [...]
Selby, P. J. (1842) A history of British forest-trees: indigenous and introduced. London. Van Voorst.
Sutton, M. (2013)The Selfish Gene Myth is Bust: Richard Dawkins is an Invented Originator. BestThinking.com
Sutton, M. (2014) Internet Dating with Darwin: New Discovery that Darwin and Wallace were Influenced by Matthew's Prior-Discovery. BestThinking.com
Wallace, A. R. 1855. On the law which has regulated the introduction of new species. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History. Series 2. 16. 184-196
Wallace, A. R. (1871) Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection. A Series of Essays. New York. Macmillan and Co.
Wallace, A. R. (1905) My Life: A Record of Events and Opinions, Volume 1. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. Note: Taken here from digitally printed version (2011), Cambridge University Press.
View all my reviews
Monday, 24 November 2014
Piratical Plundering of Navel Timber and Arboriculture
Charles Darwin is no paragon of science in this story. There is no place for respectability on a creaking wooden ship manned by a 'gentleman of science', hell bent on becoming an immortal great thinker in science, by plundering the unique discovery and ideas of another , placing him only once removed from the villainous ancestor who accumulated the wealth in the first place, upon which his 'respectable' persona is built. In fact, that bloodthirsty yeoman of a robber baron who made the Darwins so privileged deserves our respect more than the World's greatest science fraudster could generate in a dozen science stories.
So I didn't go out of my way to look for honour in the face of Darwin in this book, as he is as good and bad as anyone who finds themselves caught up in the mad scramble for ill-gotten gain and it makes the tale of Darwin, Wallace and Matthew that much better.
Ralph Steadman - genius Gonzo Artist. Friend of Johnny Depp. Resident of Loose.Attribution
The Chequers Inn, Loose, Kent, as the Admiral Benbow.
Nulius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret is a rollicking new evidence-led tale of piracy and plunder of the most important discovery in the history of science . Published by ThinkerMedia Inc and available on this website for the price of no more than two flagons of ale or a double tot of rum at The Chequers Inn in Loose Kent, one of my favorite English pubs - caught posing here for Ralph Steadman as the Admiral Benbow Inn from Treasure Island.
NOTE:
This blurb has been plundered, in no small part from Ralph Steadman .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)